![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
Yes, if you spend more on health care (say: more hospitals, more doctors or nurses, more drugs, more expensive drugs, more treatments, higher wages, more diagnostics, you name it; just blaming the ACA without telling what all that money is spend on and why it's wrong to spend it doesn't make much sense) the GDP goes up. That's kind of by definition.
Close hospitals, fire doctors and nurses, don't use expensive drugs or expensive diagnostics, lower the wages and the GDP will go down. That's what you want?
Kees
on the economy with Obamacare are the subsidies that are handed out willy-nilly to people who don't qualify for them (this is also going to be decided by SCOTUS in March) and should have never been offered in the first place, the billion spent on a faulty website, the millions added to the Medicaid rolls by lowering the limits regarding what the poverty level is now according to BO, the higher and new taxes added to the bill that will hurt the very people they claim to be 'protecting', and....
surprise, surprise.......since the premiums and deductibles are double and triple what people used to have to pay, more and more people now have forced COVERAGE but they don't have the CARE because they can't afford to pay out of pocket for that care before the 'coverage' ever kicks in each year. What 'normal' person has an extra $5000-22,000 per year PER PERSON in a household out of pocket that they can afford to spend before needing the insurance to kick in? The only way you get beyond that expense is if you have a catastrophic illness or a really disabling/crippling accident happen and that isn't something that happens in real life.
So you spend thousands on 'coverage' that you can't use because you and your family are healthy, you spend thousands on out of pocket expenses for yourself and your family because they are healthy, and you end up paying for everyone else to have that coverage that have pre-existing conditions because they AREN'T healthy. Is this what 'equality' is, in your opinion?
Measuring and quantifying the economy basically is simple: just follow the money,.
Can you provide some figures. Say, for 2012 and 2014 for a comparison.
- total health care costs in the US
- a break down to meaningful categories
- what percentage of these costs were paid (a) directly by the health care consumers, (b) indirectly by the health care consumers via insurances they paid premiums for, (c) directly by federal government (ultimately from federal taxes), (d) directly by state or local government (ulitmately from state or local taxes), (e) from ACA (Obamacare) money, a rather special case of insurance. You may add other categories if I forgot some, but they should total 100%.
Health care providers don't create money, so their revenue should be covered by such incomes. And insurance companies and ACA don't burn money, so apart from administrative costs they spend what they get, on the average. So it shouldn't be too difficult to follow the money.
Without such solid facts it's difficult to say something sensible about health care economy. And I didn't find those facts in your link. So that was mostly myth indeed.
Kees
"And insurance companies and ACA don't burn money, so apart from administrative costs they spend what they get, on the average."
You can say that about any agency, Kees.......and you can say the same about Government.....
They spend what they get............BUT if they spend MORE than what they get AND it's spent unwisely on stupid crap, they have to raise their revenue some way, which means higher taxes or higher premiums. When insurance companies are given direct orders by the Government on what they need to cover and pay for, they are forced to raise premiums and deductibles in order to make a profit and stay in business. When the Government wants more money for more of their own agendas, they do it two ways..........raise taxes/make new tax rules or print it and make the taxpayer pay for that 'down the road'.
I'm not going to hunt down the figures for you. If you don't like my information even though I have provided links to much of what you are requesting in various other threads and posts, hunt them down on your own to prove me wrong. But, if you have been looking at informative news sources, you will find that Obamacare all by itself represents 1/6th of USA economy and is climbing as it implements more and more of itself each year. When various sources all state that people's insurance premiums have increased upwards of 50% or higher in the last two years and their deductibles have tripled or more, you realize that those people that BO wanted to 'cover' are covered now but can't afford to pay their out of pocket deductibles before the insurance actually pays anything so they aren't getting the CARE anymore. Subsidies alone are costing a fortune just to find out most don't even qualify for them under Obamacare's own rules.
Also.....this great (sarcasm intended) Obamacare was supposed to cover 40M who didn't have insurance......all news sources have indicated that no matter what, there will STILL be over 30M NOT covered because they just flat out can't afford it, even WITH subsidies. There will be plenty more NOT covered once those subsidies are challenged in SCOTUS in March and those people have to repay the subsidies they have already received and they will cancel/not pay the premiums for what they had because they will not be getting those subsidies anymore.
The GDP must have been going through the roof by your estimation of Economics. Where the heck did you learn that? The Socialist School of Economics and Life Long Recessions?
hardly did exist then. And certainly GDP wasn't measured like it is nowadays.
But if people are ill or die, they don't work, they don't have income and the GDP decreases.
Kees
If 10% of the American population would die from the Plague and an average funeral is USD 8000, that would be a one-time boost to the economy of 35,000,000 times 8,000 = 280 billion dollars.
But I doubt if you can call that "going through the roof", if the GDP structurally falls with 10% (due to the decrease in population) and there are severe disturbances of daily life for the remaining 90%, which might lead to a temporary decrease in the pro capita earnings. I'm inclined to call it a recession.
Do you agree, or is it too socialist a view? In that case, I wonder what the capitalist view is.
Kees
From what I hear is that the plague was a boon to the peasants. Suddenly there weren't enough peasants to grow the food and merchants to keep things moving. So the serf system dissolved and they could move from one lord to another and would be welcomed. Also they were treated better because they could go elsewhere.
For the first time in history our middle class is no longer number one in the world - Canada's is.(YES!!!!!!)
Minimum wage up here...around $10/hr
Worse, the jobs being created are crappy, low wage, part-time jobs
I thought Obama wanted to raise the minimum wage....AND have the 40hr week? I know you have a problem with raising the minimum wage....so, if you were in power the jobs would still be low wage.
Sounds like they're not giving any bouquets to the GOP either
Where are the GOP leaders to rip this narrative to shreds? Are they so blind, deaf and dumb
Is the GOP really this stupid?
I know the Tea Party thinks they are.
I still would like to know when the Tea Party is going to grow a set and move out and run on their own platform.
BO has threatened to veto the Republican bill that will change the Obamacare requirement to a 40-hour work week instead of the 30-32 hours that is in that bill currently..........so, no.....he is NOT in favor of a 40-hour work week.
The Tea Party is actually wondering when established, 'moderate' Republicans will finally go a set and do what the people want/need instead of lobbyists or their own self-interests.
NO...He's Not in favour of requiring a 40 hour work week FOR Obamacare.
Can you tell the difference between the 2 statements?
1. 40 hour work week requirement for Obamacare
2. 40 hour work week.
There was absolutely NO MENTION of Obamacare in my post.
See?
For the first time in history our middle class is no longer number one in the world - Canada's is.(YES!!!!!!)
Minimum wage up here...around $10/hr
Worse, the jobs being created are crappy, low wage, part-time jobs
I thought Obama wanted to raise the minimum wage....AND have the 40hr week? I know you have a problem with raising the minimum wage....so, if you were in power the jobs would still be low wage.
Sounds like they're not giving any bouquets to the GOP either
Where are the GOP leaders to rip this narrative to shreds? Are they so blind, deaf and dumb
Is the GOP really this stupid?
I know the Tea Party thinks they are.
I still would like to know when the Tea Party is going to grow a set and move out and run on their own platform
a 40-hour work week BECAUSE it would also affect Obamacare. Businesses would be able to put people back to working a minimum of 39 hours in order to avoid Obamacare completely and BO likes having people working those 'crappy, low wage, part-time' jobs because it keeps them dependent upon the government. They would no longer be eligible, working more than 30 hours, for the 'freebies' he's been handing out because they would have higher paychecks.
so he can walk away and leave someone else to take the blame for it. What he's done to our national debt is criminal. That alone should have been enough for impeachments. I hope he's remembered with the "fondness" that Jimmy Carter was, and worse.
Can't be okay with one without being ok with the other, Diana..........
and that invisible credit card, you have NO comment AGAINST BO doing it and actually TRIPLING that credit card since he came into power. THAT's hypocritical, not 'remembering', Diana.
and you spent an extra $100 for new locks on the door, would you consider that just like your husband if he blew $1000 or more on his girlfriends? Bush used less money to fight wars to better secure our country while Obama blew a lot more on stuffing pockets of all his supporters.